IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding
draft-ietf-v6ops-cidr-prefix-02

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (v6ops WG)
Last updated 2015-05-04 (latest revision 2015-04-20)
Replaces draft-boucadair-6man-prefix-routing-reco
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Best Current Practice
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Lee Howard
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2015-02-17)
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Needs 7 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Responsible AD Joel Jaeggli
Send notices to "Lee Howard" <lee@asgard.org>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
IANA action state None
v6ops Working Group                                         M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft                                            France Telecom
Intended status: Best Current Practice                       A. Petrescu
Expires: October 22, 2015                                      CEA, LIST
                                                                F. Baker
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                          April 20, 2015

            IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding
                    draft-ietf-v6ops-cidr-prefix-02

Abstract

   IPv6 prefix length, as in IPv4, is a parameter conveyed and used in
   IPv6 routing and forwarding processes in accordance with the
   Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) architecture.  The length of an
   IPv6 prefix may be any number from zero to 128, although subnets
   using stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC) for address
   allocation conventionally use a /64 prefix.  Hardware and software
   implementations of routing and forwarding should therefore impose no
   rules on prefix length, but implement longest-match-first on prefixes
   of any valid length.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2015.

Boucadair, et al.       Expires October 22, 2015                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                                                April 2015

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Recommendation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   Discussions on the 64-bit boundary in IPv6 addressing ([RFC7421])
   revealed a need for a clear recommendation on which bits must be used
   by forwarding decision-making processes.  However, such a
   recommendation was out of scope for that document.

   Although Section 2.5 of [RFC4291] states "IPv6 unicast addresses are
   aggregatable with prefixes of arbitrary bit-length, similar to IPv4
   addresses under Classless Inter-Domain Routing" (CIDR, [RFC4632]),
   there is still a misinterpretation that IPv6 prefixes can be either
   /127 ([RFC6164]) or any length up to /64.  This (mis)interpretation
   is mainly induced by the 64-bit boundary in IPv6 addressing.

   As discussed in [RFC7421], "the notion of a /64 boundary in the
   address was introduced after the initial design of IPv6, following a
   period when it was expected to be at /80".  This evolution of the
   IPv6 Addressing architecture, resulting in [RFC4291], and followed
   with the addition of /127 prefixes for point-to-point links, clearly
   demonstrates the intent for future IPv6 developments to have the
   flexibility to change this part of the architecture when justified.

Boucadair, et al.       Expires October 22, 2015                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                                                April 2015
Show full document text